Have watched it for the 15th time now....Galloway was in the Raiders in goal line did not even touch a Raiders defended...no one was impeded in attempting to tackle Farah....Farah gained no advantage at all....

The call was incorrect...

The funniest thing is if Ole Henry said TRY ....the monkey's in the box would have said TRY.....

Ivan's Laws

1. You are either on the Bus or you are off..
2. The Star of the Team is the Team
3. Be the player your teammates want to play with..

The rulebook says you can't run behind a team mate to gain an advantage, what an "advantage" involves is probably a grey area. No one was taken out but we did score a try off it, so who knows...the obstruction rule has always been unclear.

Happy to accept the no try decision on the basis of an historical play that was called a shepherd, however, that unwritten rule has been confined to the annals of history for many a year now. I would say way more than a hundred tries have been allowed in the meantime under the "obstruction" guidelines, so it confounds me.

It used to be pretty basic for mine and there was little conjecture when more than a single decoy was deployed, but now we have all this inside shoulder, outside shoulder etcetera clouding the issue, and that is before taking a possible dive into account.

Also, little doubt that Pappali was not remonstrating about any obstruction, he was expecting the feined chip that Robbie sold them.

Geo. wrote:Have watched it for the 15th time now....Galloway was in the Raiders in goal line did not even touch a Raiders defended...no one was impeded in attempting to tackle Farah....Farah gained no advantage at all....

The call was incorrect...

The funniest thing is if Ole Henry said TRY ....the monkey's in the box would have said TRY.....

^^ This ^^

There was advantage gained... If it happened on the halfway line on the 3rd tackle, nothing wouldve been done about it.

A howler of a decision regardless of the outcome!

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0

"Did someone buy you the internet hero play book for Christmas and you've only just started reading it?" - Nelson 21/04/2017

Sorry, but the no try to brooks was another glaring look at how poor the desion making is!!
Galloway ran straight through the line, not one person was impeded not ONE!
Farah also was only line ball running behind him and when he was completely through the line.
The last Canberra try came off the back of a another poor call by that crap ref of a 5 tackle set to our guys working it out off our line!!!!
Can't u count morons, am mm what comes after four?????????
The 10 meters were skinny every time we had the ball but no penalties...
Seriously we have had not one fifty/fifty call go our way..
Now I know we should still not lost that game but its like we are playing against 19-21 man squad!

If it was Canberra on the other side of this call and they called try, we would be blowing up. By the book the refs made the correct call, but its a rule which they really do need to get right, because the shambles it is has been going on too long.

the call was correct it was a shepherd for all money in the old days but today I have seen dozens let go. what I cant under stand why the ref didn't blow the whistle for the shepherd straight away no nee4d to go up to video its a penalty if it happened in the middle of the park does he go up to the video NO he blows a penalty I for the love of me cant see how the video ref can pass judgment on a shepherd may be I am just a stupid old man

IMO it wasn't a shepherd or obstruction but then again these things happen and you wont hear Wicky complaining about the 50/50 calls.The WT only have themselves to blame for the loss.
The ref certainly mucked up that tackle count before the last Raiders try but i wouldn't expect any admission from the refs as they are never wrong apparently.
For the record 1st tackle-Ted 2nd-Pat 3rd-Halatau 4th-Sue 5th Rowdy.
Take a bow Henry and go back to kindergarden to learn to count and remember the WT are fully capable of orchestrating their own defeats without your help.